|
REPLY TO THREAD
|
|
Subject
|
EDUCATIONAL POST - MANDATES ARE NOT LAW!!!! MANDATES violate the 4th amendment in our Bill of Rights & THE NUREMBERG CODE
|
|
User Name
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Font color:
Font:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Message
|
1. A MANDATE IS NOT LAW
Blacks Law dictionary 11th edition ( [link to definitions.uslegal.com (secure)] defines it as such.
In Civil law, this refers to the written command given by a principal (ex: by a Governor) to an agent. It is a commission or contract by which one person (the mandator, ex: the Governor) requests someone, the mandatory, (meaning the public) to perform some service gratuitously (meaning voluntarily). The commission becomes effective when the mandatary (meaning the public) agrees.
In other words, any party being mandated is a request to gratuitously enter into a contract. This means a mandate ONLY BECOMES MANDATORY when one follows through with what they want you to do. If you do not agree to it, if you do not do what they are asking you to do, if you do not want to do what they are asking you to do, [because it is a REQUEST, (gratuitously)], then you are not obligated under the mandate. A mandate is NOT a law.
2. Mandates violate the 4th amendment in our Bill Of Rights.
Specifically, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And Finally, it goes completely against THE NUREMBERG CODE
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have the legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior forms of constraint or coercion; and
should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter
element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and
the responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society,
unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study, that the
anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the
experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who
conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end, if he has reached the physical or mental state, where continuation of the experiment seemed to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
["Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military
Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10", Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949.]
|
|
Pictures (click to insert)
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | | Next Page >> |
|
